Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

pretty good flash video, I hadn't heard of the other survelance cameras being confiscated within minutes by the FBI and have never been released, did they confiscate survelance cameras from the other plains which hit WTC 1 and 2?

Ive heard a lot of the evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon and it seemed pretty solid. However, ive never heard much on that small hole in the innermost damaged wall. Also, it makes an interesting comment on how there was no damage to the ground in front of the building. I think it would be difficult for a beginner pilot to maneuver a 757 that low to the ground and hit his target dead-on but i guess its possible.

Quote:exclusive58 said:"I think it would be difficult for a beginner pilot to maneuver a 757 that low to the ground and hit his target dead-on "

That does seem kind of unlikely...

Its easier than you think. I fly a single engine cessna, an l-29, and a bell helicopter. I have a quite a few relatives who work for AA and used the best emulators. You would really be surprised how easy it is to fly those big jets. By far the helicopter is the hardest thing to fly.

I don't doubt that the side of building could have been hit first although i believe i remember seeing skid damage in front of the building, just not much.

Also jets are basically thin sheet metal. Going into concrete and steel like that would leave a rather small hole. The wings would easily have been just crushed backwards.

Quote:d33p said:Also jets are basically thin sheet metal. Going into concrete and steel like that would leave a rather small hole.

It WAS a small (and very neat) hole... in the SIXTH wall (in and out three reinforced concrete rings). Nice achievement for thin sheet metal...

Quote:The wings would easily have been just crushed backwards.

... and then followed the plane inside the building, where they melted along with the rest of the fuselage?? Believe what you wish...

It would be SO easy to release the other videos and shut up the whole controversy. Why don't they just do it? And also, was the first thing to think of after the 'crash' to go and pick up all the existing footage? Looks as if they stood there in the starting blocks to wipe it all out just after it happened. Well, I guess they had their reasons...

It would be SO easy to release the other videos and shut up the whole controversy. Why don't they just do it?

1. The controversy only exists among paranoid internet nerds. It's not like an actual issue where people people with influence will take notice.

2. Releasing the location and angles of all of their security cameras is a security risk.

Wanna know why Bush won? Because by raising an issue about absolutely stupid things like this, it paints his opponents as silly, fickle, paranoid, and uneducated.

The people who write these articles, trying to explain through physics why the Pentagon crash isn't possible are not physicists. They do not have any advanced understanding of physics. However, here's an engineer, and a physicist explaining the crash: http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14

--------------------"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

Why would I bother to believe what a highly educated engineer or physicist says when I have all of these eye (or ear in this case) witness reports from laymen hearing "what sounded like a missile"? I wonder how many of these people have actually heard a REAL missile in flight as opposed to a sound effect produced by Hollywood.

Regarding "where did the plane go?" For the most part, it vaporized. A plane is made out of light weight aluminum and magnesium, for the most part. Both of these metals vaporize at very low temperatures. A gas (or even electric) burner on a regular stove gets hot enough to vaporize aluminum. Don't believe me? Put an open/empty aluminum can on a hot burner and wonder where it went after about 30 minutes. I promise that it wasn't aliens or a government spook that took the can off the burner.

Quote:Seuss said:Regarding "where did the plane go?" For the most part, it vaporized. A plane is made out of light weight aluminum and magnesium, for the most part. Both of these metals vaporize at very low temperatures. A gas (or even electric) burner on a regular stove gets hot enough to vaporize aluminum. Don't believe me? Put an open/empty aluminum can on a hot burner and wonder where it went after about 30 minutes. I promise that it wasn't aliens or a government spook that took the can off the burner.

On a side note, is it likely that the planes engines would have been vaporized along with the rest of everything?

Personally i don't see the point in analyzing photographs which are easily manipulated. If they release photographs why can't they release the surveilance video.

if you prove it was a missile or a plane you still don't prove who flew it. The point is that the official story, as usual just doesn't ring true with a lot of people and there is absolutly NO reason why they can't release a video of a plane smashing into a building like the other WTC towers... they seem to like replaying those shots over and over again, why not this one?

Most significantly, journalists who have a certain degree of respect from others.

Even those people who strongly oppose the american government, like Michael Moore, or Seymour Hersh. These people, as hated as they might be by some, do follow some of the basic ethics of journalism. The people fabricating these theories do not.

These people have enough influence to be able to cause a certain amount of mainstream discourse. I'm talking about the kind of people you'll find in the more respected left wing news sources, like Harper's, or the Guardian, as opposed to nutjob conspiracy websites.

--------------------"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

--------------------"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us

I mean, in Fahrenheit 9/11, he certainly made it look like the transportation of the Saudis, and Bin Laden's family was suspicious, which it may or may not have been, but he never fabricated any silly stories, or drew any illogical conclusions.

And in Bowling for Columbine, there was the thing where he made it look like the quote from one speech was said in a somewhat more insensitive context... which is hardly twisting the facts.

As much as the guy is demonized, he really has worked inside of some basic ethical boundaries, so far as I can tell.

--------------------"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us